MORE than any other politician in living memory, Margaret Thatcher polarised opinion. She was loved or loathed; Britain's saviour to some, Britain's destroyer to others.

There are many in the North-East who would sympathise with the actions of Paul Kelleher, the single parent who decapitated Baroness Thatcher's £150,000 marble statue.

But his actions cannot seriously be condoned. Millions of people protested against the threat of war at the weekend and they made their voices heard very clearly without having to resort to crime.

Mr Kelleher argued that it was his social conscience which inspired him to knock Mrs Thatcher's block off because he was so concerned about the impact of her legacy on his son.

If he really had a social conscience, he would have recognised that vandalism is a scourge of modern society and shown a better example to youngsters than taking a cricket bat and an iron bar to a valuable statue.

That said, does Mr Kelleher really deserve to be in prison? It is worth reflecting on the fact that his three-month sentence comes just weeks after Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf controversially argued that first-time burglars should not be sent to Britain's overcrowded prisons.

Under Lord Woolf's proposal, which was supported by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, Mr Kelleher could have broken into Mrs Thatcher's house, stolen her favourite ornaments, and received nothing more than community service.

How does his three months compare with the sentence imposed earlier this month on Martin Maloney, one of Britain's most prolific burglars? Responsible for 589 burglaries in 18 months, preying on the elderly and infirm, and stealing £266,930, he was locked up for seven years - four days for each of his crimes. Naturally, he will serve significantly less.

While we respect the sincerity of Paul Kelleher's opinions, he should be thoroughly ashamed for not keeping his head. But as a first-time offender guilty of criminal damage, it is hard not to wonder if he is a political prisoner.